Not a dig at you, just that semantics can be full of emotion so words have to be chosen carefully otherwise things can tend towards acrimony. As for screenshots they are not going to prove anything - this is video rendering so you have to sit in front of a moving image displayed on that same equipment. The type of material also has an effect - I notice more of a difference on some movies than others even at 1920x1080.

Not a dig at you, just that semantics can be full of emotion so words have to be chosen carefully otherwise things can tend towards acrimony. As for screenshots they are not going to prove anything - this is video rendering so you have to sit in front of a moving image displayed on that same equipment. The type of material also has an effect - I notice more of a difference on some movies than others even at 1920x1080.

Not buying that argument at all.

If it's so much of a pq improvement then we should see improvements even in screenshots. Especially, as I stated, since screenshots were used to show the difference by the developer.

Of course you see improvements in screenshots, just not in every screenshot. Some material is just better suited to show the differences in chroma upscaling (and since you claim to only be watching HD material, thats all you're going to get).
A lot of TVs also internally only process in 4:2:2 chroma, undoing a lot of what madVR did to improve the upscaling, so if you have one of those, the difference will be even less visible.

Obviously the advantage is much stronger if you watch SD material, and a lot of people still do, mostly DVDs.
A screenshot of a good quality DVD upscaled with and without madVR will most likely show a difference even you can see, at least on a decent size screen.

Anyway, madVR isn't only about the improved scaling. As of the latest versions, it practically has no disadvantages over other renderers. I don't understand why you keep fighting it. Its a good piece of software, much better of a renderer then the Microsoft EVR, even if you have "low end" hardware and stick to the simpler scaling algorithms.
Let everyone make their own choice. You don't want to use it? Fine. But if someone wants to use it, and asks for advice about it, telling them to stop using it is just plain rude.

You don't have to buy a dedicated GPU to use it and benefit from it. Some people may argue that the best scaling can only be gotten with a dedicated GPU, which is true, but the best scaling is only worth it if you use really a lot of upscaling, which means watching content at DVD resolution or below a lot.
Anyway, the point is, you can use it with any hardware you want, and still benefit from it. It works just fine on a Ivy HD4000 for example, or even on SNB HD3000's. While you may not be able to use the high-end scaling, you still benefit from its builtin calibration capabilities and the general design of avoiding GPU driver algorithms that may do unwanted changes to the image.

Of course you see improvements in screenshots, just not in every screenshot. Some material is just better suited to show the differences in chroma upscaling (and since you claim to only be watching HD material, thats all you're going to get).
A lot of TVs also internally only process in 4:2:2 chroma, undoing a lot of what madVR did to improve the upscaling, so if you have one of those, the difference will be even less visible.
Obviously the advantage is much stronger if you watch SD material, and a lot of people still do, mostly DVDs.
A screenshot of a good quality DVD upscaled with and without madVR will most likely show a difference even you can see, at least on a decent size screen.
Anyway, madVR isn't only about the improved scaling. As of the latest versions, it practically has no disadvantages over other renderers. I don't understand why you keep fighting it. Its a good piece of software, much better of a renderer then the Microsoft EVR, even if you have "low end" hardware and stick to the simpler scaling algorithms.
Let everyone make their own choice. You don't want to use it? Fine. But if someone wants to use it, and asks for advice about it, telling them to stop using it is just plain rude.

When did I do that? Just the opposite actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by assassin

You may notice a difference. Or you may not. Only one way to know for sure and that's to try it out. But don't act like its the end all for utmost PQ on all sources no matter what because, well, its not.
That's all I'm sayin.

It's the pro madvr people that are usually insulting saying that we should always see a difference no matter what regardless of material being displayed, display type, etc.

Not to offend you, but your words may say that, your attitude however does not. There is a clear "thats all BS" vibe coming from you, or at least i'm receiving.
Anyway, the post was also targeted at everyone else trying to stop people from using madVR in this thread.
Both sides have their fanatics, as with everything.

No offense taken.

I think Madvr is great piece of software. And for many people it makes a big difference in PQ (especially on non-HD content) and the way the video "feels". I am not disputing that or arguing that at all and never have.

What I arguing is that it will make a difference for EVERYONE. Now that I do think is "BS".

Take the following scenario. A HTPC user is using an lower end discrete card, older Clarkdale, i3 HD2000, etc which are perfectly capable of great 1080p picture quality. Will they definitely benefit from improved PQ if they upgrade their gear to use Madvr? I don't think anyone can definitely say that. I would say the answer is "maybe". However, there are many people including some in this thread that think they can and should say that and that anyone arguing against it needs to have their eyes or head checked. They site dramatic improvement in PQ on all sources and when I ask to see a screenshot of this improvement I am always told that it cannot be seen on a screenshot which to me is puzzling since screenshots were used to show and validate the development of madvr. Then couple that with people saying that Madshi states its minimal on HD content, that you won't notice an improvement on plasma displays, etc and I become even more convinced that not everyone will see a difference.

Personally, I think you're one of the most argumentative people on this board, particularly when it comes to this issue. You're adamant that you've never seen a difference using MadVR, and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise.

Personally, I think you're one of the most argumentative people on this board, particularly when it comes to this issue. You're adamant that you've never seen a difference using MadVR, and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steelman1991

He's not the only one though and like everyone is entitled to an opinion, particularly on this subjective issue. How do you propose to convince someone of something they can't see?

Like most things on AVS I have a slightly different take and experience. The tech world is filled with people that blindly follow others. Whether you agree or disagree with me or not I hope that at least you allow my opinion instead of calling me argumentative just for the sake of arguing which I am absolutely not doing in this case. I like to question. And I like things to be proven. Maybe that's the scientist in me.

BTW I don't see how anything I have said is really that provocative given much of the information and opinion shared from others' experiences in this thread alone not to mention many of the other threads on this subject.

Originally Posted by MlNDBOMB
madvr doesnt require a discrete card. you always had the option of using bilinear for slow gpus, and now you have the dxva scaler too.
and with ivy bridge and trinity, integrated graphics has gotten faster too.

I understand. But if you want to use all the possible settings in Madvr you need a discrete card. So saying you don't need one at all isn't really accurate.

Saying you need one isn't really accurate, either. You need one only if you want to go uber crazy with the settings. You don't need one to still beat any other renderer (that I know of) in image quality. E.g. the Intel HD3000 runs madVR just fine. I've been told the Intel HD4000 can even do Jinc upscaling (only in 24/25p, though, not in 50p/60p).

Quote:

Originally Posted by assassin

Thanks for the screenshots.
Have to say that I am not seeing what I would consider a "dramatic" improvement. Not sure how much difference it would make during the regular (meaning "non-text") part of a movie, either.
I also have a plasma HDTV so as you say the improvement may be lost on me. I do see where this would be helpful for less than HD quality content. Nothing wrong at all with using or trying Madvr. I am just still not convinced that it panacea for everyone that some touted it to be when it first came out. I still think getting a high quality display and properly calibrating it would have a much much bigger effect for most people.

I've got to say, I have the impression that you're not judging madVR fairly. There's an undertone to many of your posts that suggests something like "madVR users are falling for the placebo effect". Even if madVR were only very very slightly better at image quality compared to other renderers, as long as it's not *worse* in anything, a fair judge would crown madVR to be the objective winner and recommend it everywhere. You're very far from doing that. So tell me: What do other renderers offer that madVR does not? Why do you not judge madVR to be the winner, although it has better image quality than the competition (even if you consider the difference to be very small)? Are you a fair judge, or are you not?

There are valid reasons for not using madVR. Let me list them:

(1) Not every media player supports it.
(2) Your PC must be slightly newer than ~100 years old.
(3) madVR doesn't support rotated displays yet.

But the list should end right there. The latest madVR version can do pretty much everything that any other renderer (including VMR9 and EVR) can do, too. If you dial down the madVR scaling/processing algorithms, you should end up with almost similar speed to VMR9/EVR. Image quality should still be slightly better. And you gain several features that VMR9 and EVR don't have. For example automatic fullscreen exclusive mode, reliable & smooth playback, better seeking behaviour, high bitdepth color conversion with dithering, automatic refresh rate switching etc etc etc... If you have tried madVR and found it to be inferior to EVR/VMR9 in anything, please let me know and I'll try to change that.

Of course it's a question worth asking whether users should switch to a different media player just to be able to use madVR. I'm not able to answer that question. I think that's a decision everyone has to make for himself. And I've no axe to grind at all with anyone who doesn't want to switch media players. However, for anyone using a media player which already supports madVR I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would not recommend to use madVR today because I simply fail to see any benefits in using other renderers. Maybe I should be more modest, but sorry, I'm not in the mood for that right now.

Now a *really* good question is whether it's worth it buying a discrete card (or a faster discrete card instead of a slower one), in order to use higher madVR scaling algorithms. That's again a question I can not answer, because judging image quality differences is highly subjective (as can be seen in this thread).

Maybe I should be more modest, but sorry, I'm not in the mood for that right now.

Noted.

I am just not going to argue anymore as its not worth my time and the counter arguments are somewhat ridiculous to what I have actually said instead of what is being inferred, implied, guessed, etc.

As I stated, try Madvr if you have the appropriate hardware and see if it helps your PQ. If it does great. If not then you are no worse off than when you started. Only thing wasted or spent in this scenario is time.

Agreed. Just please don't tell others that they should notice a difference.

It should be possible to notice a difference when running madVR, because there are clear benefits from using it compared to anything else. If you don't notice the difference, well that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by assassin

But don't act like its the end all for utmost PQ on all sources no matter what because, well, its not.
That's all I'm sayin.

Sorry, but if you are not able to notice the difference between running MadVR and not, well I don't think you're much of an authority on image quality.

If it is not the "end all for utmost PQ on all sources" can you point me in the direction of what you think has better image quality than MadVR? Because I haven't found it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heuer

I installed a Isotek mains power conditioner on my plasma and, against expectations, I noticed an improvement in picture quality. Thinking this was perhaps a "placebo effect" I got both my wife and my son (separately) to do an A/B comparison without knowing what I was doing. Each time they first watched some video without the power conditioner and I then connected it. Both claimed whatever I had done improved things noticeably but suggesting this to someone who was not there will get you eaten alive.

Unless you can do proper ABX testing with almost no switching time (and I'm not sure how this would be possible with a Plasma display and power conditioner) I'm not sure how comparing by eye like that is in any way objective. It seems like this testing is a very good scenario to be influenced by placebo. What I would probably do for a more objective comparison would be to have a high-end DSLR up close to the TV with a Macro lens, and try comparing the results that way. That's probably the most objective way to do that comparison.

Now if you were talking about replacing the power supply inside the television, and somehow bypassing the ABL circuit, then I could definitely see there being an improvement in picture quality with your plasma display. (because Plasmas are a power-limited technology) But if you are using digital connections to the TV, I can't think of anything that would affect image quality that could be influenced by "power conditioning".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heuer

But then I think vinyl sounds a lot better than CD, something I can prove to disbelieving friends within minutes.

The limitations of redbook audio are known, and there's an easily measured difference between vinyl and CD. Now if you were arguing the merits of vinyl compared to high fidelity digital audio files, then we'd have a problem…

Quote:

Originally Posted by assassin

I've done the A/B comparisons as well. And I have asked others to see if they see a difference.
I don't notice a difference and others have not noticed a difference.

They were recently posted in the official MadVR topic, and illustrate the differences between two scaling algorithms that MadVR offers. (neither of which are available outside of MadVR)

Quote:

Originally Posted by assassin

No offense taken.
I think Madvr is great piece of software. And for many people it makes a big difference in PQ (especially on non-HD content) and the way the video "feels". I am not disputing that or arguing that at all and never have.
What I arguing is that it will make a difference for EVERYONE. Now that I do think is "BS".
Take the following scenario. A HTPC user is using an lower end discrete card, older Clarkdale, i3 HD2000, etc which are perfectly capable of great 1080p picture quality. Will they definitely benefit from improved PQ if they upgrade their gear to use Madvr? I don't think anyone can definitely say that. I would say the answer is "maybe". However, there are many people including some in this thread that think they can and should say that and that anyone arguing against it needs to have their eyes or head checked. They site dramatic improvement in PQ on all sources and when I ask to see a screenshot of this improvement I am always told that it cannot be seen on a screenshot which to me is puzzling since screenshots were used to show and validate the development of madvr. Then couple that with people saying that Madshi states its minimal on HD content, that you won't notice an improvement on plasma displays, etc and I become even more convinced that not everyone will see a difference.
That's all I have been saying. Go back and read for yourself.

MadVR's dithering and gradation improvements are going to be much more noticeable in a moving image than a static screenshot, as that is the nature of those things. A fade-to-black transition, or the camera going in or out of focus, is something where gradation capabilities are far more obvious than simply looking at a greyscale ramp.

Similarly, you might not notice chroma aliasing nearly as much in a static image compared to one in motion.

MadVR is objectively better than any of the other video renderers out there. Whether you notice a difference, or whether you care about the difference if you can see it, is not the point. The point is that MadVR has clear benefits for anyone that cares about having the best image quality they can get.

...If you dial down the madVR scaling/processing algorithms, you should end up with almost similar speed to VMR9/EVR. Image quality should still be slightly better. And you gain several features that VMR9 and EVR don't have.

This sounds good, but there are so many settings in madVR and I have never seen much documentation on them. It would take most people, I think, a very long time to accomplish what you just described.

Am I missing some page that gives a nice guide on how to accomplish things like that?

Or maybe madVR needs a feature that might be called "Super-set" where you can choose from a few descriptive modes in a list (eg., "highest quality", "EVR quality", "low CPU/GPU demand") and choosing one of those modes automatically adjusts all the other settings appropriately (which can then be fine-tuned further if desired).

It should be possible to notice a difference when running madVR, because there are clear benefits from using it compared to anything else. If you don't notice the difference, well that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Sorry, but if you are not able to notice the difference between running MadVR and not, well I don't think you're much of an authority on image quality.
If it is not the "end all for utmost PQ on all sources" can you point me in the direction of what you think has better image quality than MadVR? Because I haven't found it.
Unless you can do proper ABX testing with almost no switching time (and I'm not sure how this would be possible with a Plasma display and power conditioner) I'm not sure how comparing by eye like that is in any way objective. It seems like this testing is a very good scenario to be influenced by placebo. What I would probably do for a more objective comparison would be to have a high-end DSLR up close to the TV with a Macro lens, and try comparing the results that way. That's probably the most objective way to do that comparison.
Now if you were talking about replacing the power supply inside the television, and somehow bypassing the ABL circuit, then I could definitely see there being an improvement in picture quality with your plasma display. (because Plasmas are a power-limited technology) But if you are using digital connections to the TV, I can't think of anything that would affect image quality that could be influenced by "power conditioning".
The limitations of redbook audio are known, and there's an easily measured difference between vinyl and CD. Now if you were arguing the merits of vinyl compared to high fidelity digital audio files, then we'd have a problem…
Can you see a difference between these two images?Image 1Image 2
They were recently posted in the official MadVR topic, and illustrate the differences between two scaling algorithms that MadVR offers. (neither of which are available outside of MadVR)
MadVR's dithering and gradation improvements are going to be much more noticeable in a moving image than a static screenshot, as that is the nature of those things. A fade-to-black transition, or the camera going in or out of focus, is something where gradation capabilities are far more obvious than simply looking at a greyscale ramp.
Similarly, you might not notice chroma aliasing nearly as much in a static image compared to one in motion.
MadVR is objectively better than any of the other video renderers out there. Whether you notice a difference, or whether you care about the difference if you can see it, is not the point. The point is that MadVR has clear benefits for anyone that cares about having the best image quality they can get.

Again, you missed my point. I never said there wasn't ever a difference. I said there won't always be a noticeable difference for some people. I and others as evidenced here at AVS don't notice a noticeable difference especially on HD content. You can also make the argument that unless you are comparing them side by side the difference between the screenshots you posted (again on text alone) are negligible for some people on certain type displays. Certainly I see a slight difference on your image examples but on typical non-text content I couldn't tell you with 100% certainty that all people should see that difference.

Easy to do, since your "point" appears to be a moving target, as well as ambiguous. I have to agree with madshi and Nev that your posts on the subject don't make a lot of sense. Never have I seen you argue that madVR is worse than other alternatives. So it seems to me the logical stance to take would be for people to install and use madVR if they can, and only bother with potentially worse renderers if something prevents them from running madVR (application incompatibility or very slow hardware). But I have certainly seen you post advice that looks nothing like that. If you current advice does look like that, you may want to clarify it once and for all.

Easy to do, since your "point" appears to be a moving target, as well as ambiguous. I have to agree with madshi and Nev that your posts on the subject don't make a lot of sense. Never have I seen you argue that madVR is worse than other alternatives. So it seems to me the logical stance to take would be for people to install and use madVR if they can, and only bother with potentially worse renderers if something prevents them from running madVR (application incompatibility or very slow hardware). But I have certainly seen you post advice that looks nothing like that. If you current advice does look like that, you may want to clarify it once and for all.

Try it if you have the hardware. May be subjectively better. May be subjectively no different. I certainly never said it was any worse.

I have said it repeatedly here in this thread and previously. I am not sure how I clarify it any further.

BTW I have a videophile system on assasinhtpc.com which uses a discrete card, quiet cooling, etc with JRiver and Red October so I certainly see the merits of Madvr. But I am not going to come out and tell people that they will definitely notice a dramatic improvement in PQ but I don't think that's an honest statement I or others can make (but I do think it increases those odds as much as possible especially on non-HD content).

Try it if you have the hardware. May be subjectively better. May be subjectively no different. I certainly never said it was any worse.
I have said it repeatedly here in this thread and previously. I am not sure how I clarify it any further.
BTW I have a videophile system on assasinhtpc.com which uses a discrete card, quiet cooling, etc with JRiver and Red October so I certainly see the merits of Madvr. But I am not going to come out and tell people that they will definitely notice a dramatic improvement in PQ but I don't think that's an honest statement I or others can make (but I do think it increases those odds as much as possible especially on non-HD content).

There was no real need to even respond in this thread to the level you have given that the OP wanted to know information regarding which level of discrete GPU was sufficient for MadVR usage. If the thread was titled... should I use madVR and what are the benefits etc. then it would make sense for all the back and forth. I'm not taking sides or suggesting that you can't state your opinion, the main problem is that nobody really asked for it in this thread.

There was no real need to even respond in this thread to the level you have given that the OP wanted to know information regarding which level of discrete GPU was sufficient for MadVR usage. If the thread was titled... should I use madVR and what are the benefits etc. then it would make sense for all the back and forth. I'm not taking sides or suggesting that you can't state your opinion, the main problem is that nobody really asked for it in this thread.

Completely agree. Like many threads it got off track. Apologies to the OP.

This sounds good, but there are so many settings in madVR and I have never seen much documentation on them. It would take most people, I think, a very long time to accomplish what you just described.
Am I missing some page that gives a nice guide on how to accomplish things like that?
Or maybe madVR needs a feature that might be called "Super-set" where you can choose from a few descriptive modes in a list (eg., "highest quality", "EVR quality", "low CPU/GPU demand") and choosing one of those modes automatically adjusts all the other settings appropriately (which can then be fine-tuned further if desired).

There are some guides on the internet, but probably none which is written for making madVR work on very slow hardware. There are some general problems optimizing video playback for slow hardware, which apply to all renderers. E.g. should you use Bilinear scaling or rather DXVA scaling? IIRC Intel has hard wired dedicated circuits to do DXVA deinterlacing and scaling, so you're not using up any pixel shader power when using these features. However, AFAIK, AMD and NVidia use pixel shaders for DXVA deinterlacing and scaling. So using these features for Intel makes more sense than for AMD/NVidia, if you have a really slow PC. Because of this problem, it may need a bit of experimenting to find the best solution for your specific hardware. One other general suggestion is to try both software and DXVA hardware decoding to see which works better on your PC. That depends a bit on whether your CPU or the GPU is the main bottleneck. This again is a problem that applies to all renderers, not just to madVR.

Generally, the performance of madVR mainly depends on which scaling algorithms you're using. So that's all the settings you need to look at. You can leave all other settings at default values. My recommendation would be to try DXVA Scaling, if you have an Intel GPU. If you have an AMD or NVidia GPU, you could start of by setting all scaling settings to "Bilinear" for slow hardware. Then if video plays smoothly this way, you could try whether your GPU can handle some of the higher quality scaling algorithms. A high quality option would be Lanczos3 for image upscaling. If that runs fine, try activating the anti-ringing filter on top. If that still runs fine, try adding Bicubic75 for chroma upscaling. For image downscaling you could try Catmull-Rom. These are just some suggestions. You can play with the various scaling settings to see which algorithms run smoothly and which don't, and which look good to your eyes and which don't. Generally, the more demanding algorithms are down in the list. The fastest are up in the list.

One thing worth trying is the "enable windowed overlay (win7 or higher)" option in the madVR settings. This option improves playback smoothness & performance during windowed (non full-screen) playback. This can be especially useful for slow hardware. AFAIK, no other renderer offers this feature. Unfortunately it only works for Intel and NVidia GPUs, but not for AMD GPUs. That's why it's not enabled by default.

madVR still has not reached v1.0 yet, so things are still changing around a bit from version to version. Because of that I've not spent the time writing an extensive manual yet. This will come when I reach v1. I also do plan to maybe create such a "Super-set" feature that you mentioned, but it will also not come before I reach v1. And that's still some way off...

I have the anti-ringing filter checked and three taps with the latest release of MPC-HC. I was playing a .mkv of the blu-ray of Lawrence of Arabia. As far as I know that is a 24p or 60i source but I do not know how to check. The Panasonic display works at 60p

No worries. True 60p material is rare. However, 60i material is quite common, and after deinterlacing it becomes 60p. So if you have any music concert Blu-Rays, or maybe watch TV recordings or DVDs, then you might get 60i stuff, which will then be deinterlaced to 60p. With such material you'll probably get stuttering with Jinc AR with your GPU. FWIW, for *movie* TV recordings and DVDs you can use madVR's "film mode", which will then convert 60i to 24p (instead of 60p) which should then play fine again with Jinc AR. Music concerts, sports etc are troublesome, though.

for me the whole point in madvr is how much better it shows 720p source material. it's normal that u don't see a difference in 1080p source material because then madvr is automatically turned off !

ever since madvr i'm mostly collecting 720p stuff...

Just my opinion but I completely disagree. I watch a lot of 720p tv and Blu-ray rips. I see no difference between MadVR and XBMC using Lanczos3 or Spline 36 scaling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joesyah

I use a JVC RS45 on 120" screen and see a noticeable difference using madVR/LAV/MPC-HC verses XMBC. I wish there was a way to use the combo in place of the standard XMBC player! XMBC is cool but the video quality sucks.